“An RFL Appeals Tribunal has lifted the one-match suspension handed down to Lee Radford following the Hull FC forward’s dismissal for repeatedly punching Ryan Bailey of Leeds Rhinos in last Saturday’s Engage Super League Round 27 fixture at KC Stadium.

However the tribunal upheld the guilty verdict and ruled that that the £300 fine handed down by the RFL Disciplinary Committee on Tuesday night should stand.

In giving their decision, the tribunal accepted that only one of the punches thrown by Radford had made contact and that the player had been provoked by Bailey. The panel also took into consideration the fact that the dismissal was Radford’s first red card in 15 seasons as a Rugby League professional.

“An RFL Appeals Tribunal has lifted the one-match suspension handed down to Lee Radford following the Hull FC forward’s dismissal for repeatedly punching Ryan Bailey of Leeds Rhinos in last Saturday’s Engage Super League Round 27 fixture at KC Stadium.

However the tribunal upheld the guilty verdict and ruled that that the £300 fine handed down by the RFL Disciplinary Committee on Tuesday night should stand.

In giving their decision, the tribunal accepted that only one of the punches thrown by Radford had made contact and that the player had been provoked by Bailey. The panel also took into consideration the fact that the dismissal was Radford’s first red card in 15 seasons as a Rugby League professional.

But did they not know this when they gave him a one match ban!!!!

The RFL are certainly in a world of there own!

On the face of it seems strange, given, as you say, that they were already aware of the mitigating factors.

Perhaps the appeal is heard by a different panel.

"I own up. I am a serial risk taker. I live in a flood zone, cycle without a helmet, drink alcohol and on Sunday I had bacon for breakfast."

On the face of it seems strange, given, as you say, that they were already aware of the mitigating factors.

Perhaps the appeal is heard by a different panel.

I think that is the case.

It will be interesting to read the notes when they are published, but based on the fact that he was sent off after only 9 minutes then in effect he and his team were punished for one game already, and that is often seen as enough punishment, maybe the 2nd panel went with that view.

The panel have taken a great deal of time to come to the decision. You have been given credit for your long unblemished record in the game and the fact that you have pleaded guilty. In our view however this was a serious matter, virtually an assault by punching a player four times to the head who was on the ground, and although your opponent was allowed to continue with the game he did sustain a blood injury.

Sounds like it was touch and go, and the comments almost invite an appeal.

The panel have taken a great deal of time to come to the decision. You have been given credit for your long unblemished record in the game and the fact that you have pleaded guilty. In our view however this was a serious matter, virtually an assault by punching a player four times to the head who was on the ground, and although your opponent was allowed to continue with the game he did sustain a blood injury.

Sounds like it was touch and go, and the comments almost invite an appeal.

The level of provocation Radford faced was nothing compared to that which Fielden was subjected to by Mason. Bailey wound Radford up within the rules of the game. Fielden was not dismissed, but Wigan still lost the game.Ian Smith was entirely correct to send Radford off for an attack at the head of a player. Fielden was banned for one match for punching an opponent. He only connected properly once, on Mason's chin. The rescinding of this one match ban handed down to Radford brings the integrity of the disciplinary panel and it's procedures into serious doubt.